JUDGMENT Nirmal Singh, J. - This appeal is directed against the judgment and order 1.5.1992 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat vide which appellants Smt. Shamo and Ramesh Kumar have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 7 years under Section 304-B/34 Indian Penal Code. 2. The case of the prosecution is that Premo daughter of Patia Ram was married with accused Ramesh Kumar about 4-1/2 years prior to 26.9.1990 i.e. the date of occurrence. On 26.9.1990, Patia Ram complainant came to know that his daughter was ill. He went to Panipat to see Premo. On reaching the house of Premo, he found that she was lying dead after having received burn injuries. While Patia Ram was proceeding to lodge the report in Police Post Kishan Pura, Police Station City Panipat, ASI Hari Singh met him and he made a statement Ex.PC. In his statement, Patia Ram had disclosed that sufficient dowry was given at the time of marriage of Premo but after 1/1-1/2 months of the marriage, the accused persons have started harassing and torturing Premo and they gave beating to her because they were not satisfied with the dowry articles. Premo was turned out of her matrimonial home by the accused persons and she came to the house of the complainant-Patia Ram. Premo narrated that the accused would only keep her in the house, if she would bring Rs. 5,000/- in cash. This fact was disclosed by Premo in the presence of Jangpal, Nihal Chand and Smt. Mewa. On the basis of statement of complainant, FIR was recorded. 3. After completion of the investigation, challan against the accused was presented in the court of Illaqa Magistrate. As the case was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, it was committed to that court. 4. On commitment, the case was entrusted to Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat for trial. The accused were charge-sheeted under Section 304-B read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 5. To prove its case, the prosecution has examined PW1 Dr. Mahesh Parkash, M.O. Civil Hospital, Panipat. He has conducted the autopsy on the dead body of Premo. In the opinion of PW1, the cause of death was shock due to extensive burns (approximately 100%). All the injuries were ante-mortem in nature and sufficient to cause death in the natural course of life. Mahesh Parkash, M.O. Civil Hospital, Panipat. He has conducted the autopsy on the dead body of Premo. In the opinion of PW1, the cause of death was shock due to extensive burns (approximately 100%). All the injuries were ante-mortem in nature and sufficient to cause death in the natural course of life. Doctor Mahesh Parkash has also proved his report. Ex.P/1. 6. PW2 Patia Ram is the father of deceased Premo and is the complainant. 7. PW3 HC Subash Chand, PW4 Constable Joginder Singh, PW5 Constable Ranbir Singh. They have tendered into evidence their affidavits Exhs. PD, PE and PF respectively. 8. PW6 Dalip Singh and PW7 Nihal Chand. They have deposed in their statements that they were members of Panchayat. The accused have demanded Rs. 5,000/- as dowry and Patia Ram was not in a position to arrange the same. 9. PW8 ASI Hari Singh is the Investigator of case. 10. PW9 Chander Bhan. He has taken the photographs of the place of occurrence Ex.PL/4-6 and their negatives are Ex.PL/1-3. 11. PW10 Balak Ram, Draftsman. He has prepared the scaled site plan Ex.PH. 12. The prosecution has closed the evidence after giving up PWs Dr. Rajiv Sethi, M.O. Civil Hospital, Safidon, Jangpal, Mewa Devi as unnecessary. 13. When the accused were examined under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code to explain the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence, they denied simplicitor and alleged false implication. Ramesh Kumar, husband of Premo took the following plea :- "I am innocent. When I, my father and the Biradari members had gone to the house of Patia Ram, we had not apologised because we were innocent. We had not demanded Rs. 5000/-. After the marriage, I wanted to live at Panipat to which Patia Ram and Premo were not interested. It is a false case." 14. The accused were called to lead defence. In their defence, they have examined DW1 Har Narain, DW2 Chhota and DW3 Om Parkash. 15. After hearing the learned Public Prosecutor and counsel for the accused and perusing the record, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat convicted and sentenced the accused as mentioned in paragraph 1 of the judgment. Aggrieved by which, the present appeal has been preferred. 16. Mr. 15. After hearing the learned Public Prosecutor and counsel for the accused and perusing the record, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat convicted and sentenced the accused as mentioned in paragraph 1 of the judgment. Aggrieved by which, the present appeal has been preferred. 16. Mr. Rameshwar Malik, counsel for the appellants assailed the judgment of the learned trial court on the ground that the learned trial court has not appreciated the evidence of the prosecution in the right perspective. He submitted that case of the prosecution hinges on the statements of PW2 Patia Ram and PW6 Dalip Singh and that from the evidence of these prosecution witnesses, it has not been proved that there was demand of dowry immediately prior to the death of Premo and she was subjected to harassment and cruelty on account of demand of dowry. He further submitted that offence under Section 304-B Indian Penal Code is made out when the death of a married woman has taken place in abnormal circumstances within 7 years of the marriage and that soon before her death, she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for or in connection with any demand of dowry. He contended that from the testimonies of PW2 Patia Ram and PW6 Dalip Singh, it has not been proved that deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment by the appellants or any relative. He further submitted that after the marriage, deceased Premo had been insisting Ramesh Kumar that he should live in the house of her sister in village Moonak as she was having illicit relations with the husband of her sister. He contended that sister of Premo had turned her out of her house and when it became public, she committed suicide due to shame. 17. On the other hand, Mr. K.S. Chauhan, learned DAG submitted that the learned trial court has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellants as death of Premo in this case was within 7 years of her marriage and was not under normal circumstances. He further submitted that it has been proved that soon before her death, Premo was subjected to cruelty and harassment on account of demand of dowry i.e. Rs. 5,000/- demanded by Ramesh Kumar. He contended that complainant Patia Ram has not falsely implicated the appellants. He further submitted that it has been proved that soon before her death, Premo was subjected to cruelty and harassment on account of demand of dowry i.e. Rs. 5,000/- demanded by Ramesh Kumar. He contended that complainant Patia Ram has not falsely implicated the appellants. He supported the judgment of the learned trial court and submitted that offence under Section 304-B is fully proved against the appellants. 18. Before considering the rival contentions of the parties, it will be appropriate to notice the provisions of Section 304-B Indian Penal Code, which reads as under :- "304-B. Dowry Death :- (1) Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns of bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for or in connection with, any demand of dowry, such death shall be called "dowry death" and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death. Explanation - For the purpose of this sub-section "dowry" shall have the same meaning as in Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. (2) Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life." 19. In order to attract the provisions of Section 304-B Indian Penal Code, the prosecution has to prove the following ingredients : a) that the death of woman has taken place in abnormal circumstances within 7 years of the marriage. b) that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for or in connection with any demand for dowry. 20. The evidence of the prosecution is to be appreciated in the light of the above ingredients. Two ingredients of Section 304-B Indian Penal Code are complete as Premo had died within 7 years of her marriage as deposed by Patia Ram, father of Premo and she had died unnatural death. The controversy left between the parties is with regard to the third ingredient i.e. as to whether soon before her death, Premo was subjected to cruelty and harassment on account of demand of Rs. 5000/-. The controversy left between the parties is with regard to the third ingredient i.e. as to whether soon before her death, Premo was subjected to cruelty and harassment on account of demand of Rs. 5000/-. The learned trial court has not appreciated the evidence in its true spirit, while convicting the appellants. 21. PW2 Patia Ram has deposed in his statement that after 1/1-1/2 years of the marriage, the accused party had started harassing and torturing Premo as they were not satisfied with the dowry articles. He further deposed that about two years after marriage, the in-laws of Premo gave her severe beating and sent her to his house saying that they would only keep her if she brought Rs. 5,000/- in cash. He further deposed that Premo told this fact to the complainant in the presence of Jang Pal, Nihal Chand and Smt. Mewa. But when PW2 Patia Ram was cross-examined, he has deposed that talk about Rs. 5,000/- has started when Premo had come after residing with Ramesh in muklawa. He further deposed that muklawa ceremony was performed within one year of the marriage. He deposed that prior to one week of death of Premo, he had come to Panipat to see Premo and had given Rs. 5/- to her as per custom. However, he did not give anything to Ramesh Kumar and his parents. At that time, Premo had not complained anything to the complainant. She was fine but she had not expressed her desire to accompany the complainant. He further deposed that he had sent Premo to her matrimonial home at the persuasion of Biradari Panchayat brought by Ramesh and his father Sunehra. Premo had got ready to accompany Ramesh and Sunehra, the day they had expressed their desire not to press their demand for Rs. 5,000/- but in the same breath he said that Biradari Panchayat brought by Ramesh had not pressed him to give Rs. 5,000/-. 22. If Premo, as deposed by PW2 Patia Ram, would have been harassed by the appellants on account of demand or Rs. 5,000/- she must have told this fact to him. Rather from the evidence on record, it is crystal clear that Ramesh and his father Sunehra had brought panchayat to the house of Patia Ram and persuaded him through the Biradari to sent back Premo. 5,000/- she must have told this fact to him. Rather from the evidence on record, it is crystal clear that Ramesh and his father Sunehra had brought panchayat to the house of Patia Ram and persuaded him through the Biradari to sent back Premo. Moreover, if Ramesh and Sunehra had the intention to get money from Patia Ram, they would not have brought the Biradari Panchayat to take back Premo. So, from the evidence on record, it shows that there was no demand of Rs. 5,000/- from the appellants and they were ready to take back Premo without money. 23. The prosecution has examined PW6 Dalip Singh and PW7 Nihal Chand. Both are interested witnesses. They belong to the village of complainant Patia Ram. Patia Ram has admitted in his cross-examination that Nihal Chand is friendly to him and is the Lambardar whereas Dalip Singh is the cultivator of his village Kheri Sharaf Ali. These two witnesses i.e. PW6 Dalip Singh and PW7 Nihal Chand are co-villagers of complainant Patia Ram and they have supported his version. So, no reliance can be placed on their testimonies. 24. As it has been discussed above that there is no evidence on record that there was demand of Rs. 5,000/- from Premo soon before her death and that on that account, she was subjected to cruelty and harassment, therefore, presumption under Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act cannot be raised. The accused can be convicted only if soon before the death of a married woman, she was subjected to cruelty and harassment on account of demand of dowry. In Satvir Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another, AIR 2001 Supreme Court 2828, it has been held as under :- "It is not enough that harassment or cruelty was caused to the woman with a demand for dowry at some time, if Section 304-B is to be invoked. But it should have happened "soon before her death". The said phrase, no doubt, is an elastic expression and can refer to a period either immediately before her death or within a few days or even a few weeks before it. But the proximity to her death is the pivot indicated by that expression. But it should have happened "soon before her death". The said phrase, no doubt, is an elastic expression and can refer to a period either immediately before her death or within a few days or even a few weeks before it. But the proximity to her death is the pivot indicated by that expression. The legislative object in providing such a radius of time by employing the words "soon before her death" is to emphasise the idea that her death should, in all probabilities, have been the aftermath of such cruelty or harassment. In other words, there should be a perceptible nexus between her death and the dowry related harassment or cruelty inflicted on her. If the interval elapsed between the infliction of such harassment or cruelty and her death is wide the Court would be in a position to gauge that in all probabilities the death would not have been the immediate cause of her death. It is hence for the Court to decide, on the facts and circumstances of each case, whether the said interval in that particular case was sufficient to snuff its cord from the concept "soon before her death." 25. Similar view has been taken in Sham Lal v. State of Haryana, AIR 1997 Supreme Court 1873, which reads as under :- "It is imperative, for invoking the aforesaid legal presumption, to prove that "soon before her death" she was subjected to such cruelty or harassment. Here, what the prosecution achieved in proving at the most that there was persisting dispute between the two sides regarding the dowry paid or to be paid, both in kind and in cash, and on account of the failure to meet the demand for dowry. Neelam Rani was taken by her parents to their house about one and a half years before her death. Further evidence is that an attempt was made to patch up between the two sides for which a panchayat was held in which it was resolved that she would go back to the nuptial home pursuant to which she was taken by the husband to his house. This happened about ten to fifteen days prior to the occurrence in this case. This happened about ten to fifteen days prior to the occurrence in this case. There is nothing on record to show that she was either treated with cruelty or harassed with the demand for dowry during the period between her having been taken to the parental home and her tragic end." 26. In the instant case, as it has been discussed above, there is no evidence on record that Premo was harassed and tortured for not fulfilling the demand of dowry and she had committed suicide on that account. 27. For the reasons recorded above, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable shadow of doubt against the appellants, therefore, I give the benefit of doubt to the appellants and acquit them of the charge. The appeal is accepted. The appellants are on bail. Their bail bonds and surety bonds stand discharged. Appeal allowed.